This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 17 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 17 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
Per Bothner wrote: > > (set! ((lambda (x) x) y) V) > > It is valid syntactically. It expands to: > ((setter (lambda (x) x)) y V) > But since (lambda (x) x) does not have a setter associated > with it, you'd get a (run-time) error. The SRFI says nothing whatsoever about errors of this sort. > But this is allowed: > > (set! ((if (random) car cdr) x) v) But when Matthias asked whether the grammar was (set! exp exp) you said "No - that would be ambiguous". I took a guess as to what that might mean, but you say my guess at something that would be erroneous is "valid syntactically". So now I know neither what the comment about ambiguity refers to nor what the SRFI permits. 'shriram